Table of contents

Friday, November 12.

[Sir William Jones was sent up with a Message to the Lords,
to acquaint them with the Resolution of this House to proceed to
the Tryal of the Lords in the Tower, and forthwith begin with
William Viscount Stafford; and to desire their Lordships to appoint a convenient day for the Tryal of the said William Viscount Stafford, &c. And their Lordships accordingly appointed
Tuesday fortnight for the said Tryal.]

Saturday, November 13.

Mr Peter Norris [being called in,] gave an Information in
writing, relating to the Popish Plot; which was read at the
Clerk's Table (fn. 1).

Mr Paul Foley(fn. 2).] This man was sent over into France,
to bring a Priest who could give evidence to the Plot,
and had 20l. given him, by Order of Council, for that
purpose, and care was taken to poison the Evidence.
When Norris came back into England, he was seized by
Secretary Jenkins's Order, though he went by Order,
and had Money allowed him.

[A Committee was appointed, to receive Informations concerning the Popish Plot, &c. Norris's Information was referred
to the said Committee.]

Mr Trenchard reports, from the Committee to whom the
Charge against Sir George Jeffreys, Recorder of London, was
referred, [That the Committee had taken the same into consideration, and had heard the Evidence for and against the said
Sir George Jeffreys, and had agreed upon a Vote to be reported
to the House, &c.]

Lord Russel.] It appears plainly that Jeffreys(fn. 3) is a Criminal. It is plain he has acted so arbitrarily against the
Protestant interest, that, unless some exemplary punishment be inslicted upon him, other offenders may take
encouragement. We are sure he has given countenance
to the Plot, and I desire you will humbly move the
King to remove him from his Places, and that you
would inflict some exemplary punishment upon him.

Sir Henry Capel.] The circumstance of time is of great
weight in this matter. The City of London is a great and
wise body, and will not be disturbed by the notions of a
particular man. The time when this was done is much
in the case. A little disturbance then was of great weight.
This is a disturbance in the City, in their Proceedings according to Law. Westminster is a great City too, and the
consequence of disturbing these two Cities might have
been fatal. The City of London embraced the opposition
of the Plot with great zeal, and placed their Guards for
Defence of the City and Kingdom, and when they proceed according to Law, you are to give them all the countenance you can. The King and Kingdom are beholden
to them for their safety. I remember, yesterday, Fitzgerald,
in his Information, told us, "That the Papists were discomposed when the Parliament was to fit, but afterwards
they were assured they should have no harm, because there
would be a difference betwixt the Lords and them." And
so, according to Coleman's Letters, they were to sit, or not
sit, be prorogued, or not prorogued, as they should see
cause. But that there should be such Members to give
this occasion in the Long Parliament amongst ourselves!
—If you agree with the Committee in this Vote, we shall
have no difference with the City, that brave and Protestant City; and I hope next there will be no difference betwixt the Lords and us. I would agree with the Committee.

Mr Booth.] I agree that Sir George Jeffreys, by what I
hear from the Report, was a great occasion of the Pro
clamation against petitioning for sitting of the Parliament,
which is called "seditious." He is Chief Justice of Chester, and I shall speak to his Proceedings there. He has
an arbitrary Power to appoint the Assizes. Usually the
first Assizes are kept there about April or May, and the
latter about September. The first he put off till July—So
long put off, that we were forced to have no Assizes. At
last, in August he came; and then went away, and left
half the causes untryed, and, to mend the matter, he said
"there should be no more tryed, and the People must go
away," their Counsel feed, and their Witnesses brought.
We cannot expect Justice from him; besides, this matter
he is charged with from the City renders him unfit either
to be employed in Chester or London. It is a dishonour to
the King his deportment, to sit up drinking till three or
four of the clock in the morning, and next day to appear upon the Bench, with the symptoms of a man that
had taken a large dose over night. Several Gentlemen
that are Justices can prove, that he said, "He did not
know how long he should be Chief Justice, and so did
not take the Oaths and Test appointed by Law." Sir Peter Leicester was by; he would have sworn him, and there
was no Dedimus potestatem; and if you, Mr Speaker, had
not been by, he had sworn him. I hope that you will
add to your Vote "his removal from his Place of Chief
Justice of Chester.

Mr Wharton.] The best way to make this Report perfect, is to recommit it. I observe that Jeffreys's witnesses
were very defective: Some were the very men that tore the
Petition for sitting of the Parliament. Another, Crisp, was
a Serjeant of the Hall. I will not speak of his immoralities,
but I would have all the Members of the Common Council, of the House, speak their knowlege of his deportment.

Mr Vernon.] I will speak only to his traducing of
Petitions. I do not wonder at his insolence in the Courts,
when he was so at the Council-Table. He was one that
stepped out, to speak his opinion of Petitions to the
King, before my Lord Chancellor gave his. Some destroy Petitions rantingly, and some subtilely, &c.

Colonel Titus, being called upon to speak, said,] When a
Member will speak, or not, he is the best judge of it
himself. But here is a Report that refers you to Members of the Common Council for farther information. I
move you, that they may give the House satisfaction,
how things were carried by Sir George Jeffreys in the
Common Council.

Sir Robert Clayton.] If any Gentleman desires to be
satisfied in any particular thing that was done at the Common Council, I am ready to give him satisfaction.

Colonel Birch.] Consider what the Reporter said, mind
the Report of all your Evidences, and it is but what your
Members said as Evidence. Your Report will look imperfect, unless you do so.

Sir Patience Ward, Lord Mayor.] Whilst the Petition
for sitting of the Parliament was agitating (it was the
popular Petition by gathering of hands which several
Members of the House subscribed) there was a noise
that the Lord Mayor was summoned to the Council upon it, and had some admonition; they apprehending
that it was a tumultuous Petition within the Law. The
Lord Mayor and Aldermen were summoned to the
Council; they consulted the Recorder, the mouth of the
City, before they could say any thing. The Recorder
mentioned Crooke's Reports, and said, "Such Petitioning
was bordering upon Treason, and the beginning of Rebellion, and promoting Sedition:" And it had a great
effect upon the people that know not, and read not the
Law. Five days after, the Proclamation came out,
which put great weight upon mens spirits. A Common Council was called, where it was moved to petition
the King for sitting of the Parliament, representing the
great danger of Religion, &c. The Court being opened, and something said of the Petition, Sir George
Jeffreys, in a long discourse, mentioned Crooke's Reports,
but upon some discourse with him, he agreed Petitioning to be lawful; but abundance changed their minds,
when the Recorder urged, "That that way of Petitioning
did once tend to destroy the King's Person, and might endanger the City Charter." And the terror of such as
feared the loss of the Charter, brought that issue of deterring Persons from subscribing the Petition.

Sir Robert Clayton.] There were two sorts of Petitioning, the one popular, the other from the Common
Council. What were the actions of this Gentleman
were in Common Council. The Lord Mayor, &c. were
summoned before the King and Council; where my
Lord Chancellor told them, "That the King had heard
of a Petition both from London and the Country, which
would prejudice the public peace." He charged them
that there should be no Petitioning in London, and gave a
strict charge against the thing, and the Question being
asked "By what Law?" the Recorder produced the
Report out of Crooke, "That it was a crime punishable
at discretion, and that it bordered upon Treason." The
Recorder did declare it lawful at the Common Council, but did obstruct it all he could.

Mr Pilkington.] There has been something omitted,
which I shall crave leave to give you an account of. The
Recorder, in the Common Council, spoke to this effect:
"Gentlemen, you have heard the King's Proclamation;
take notice, if you displease the King by Petitioning, and
shorten the King's Life thereby, your Charter and all
things will be taken from you, and it may be the ruin of
you and your posterity." Many have been deterred
by his manner of pleading and ranting in the City Court
—I take him to be a common enemy to mankind, and I
hope you will use him accordingly.

Sir Thomas Player.] I am commanded to inform you
of this matter; and though some persons may look upon
it as an extraordinary severity from me, who formerly
have had an extraordinary friendship for this Gentleman,
that I should now expose him, and let the World see his
extravagances, yet, for the service of England, farewell all
particular friendship! At the Privy Council I was not,
but at the Common Council I was. It was remarked,
that his forwardness in the Council, in giving his opinion
in the Proclamation, gave it that forward birth. Though
for his Speech in Common Council (of an hour long)
some men did admire him, yet this it was, to justify the
Court. Several Members of the Common Council made
it appear, that it was absolutely necessary that the Parliament should meet for the preservation of the King's Person, our Liberties and Lives. Having asserted this, I
think no man had the impudence to say the contrary.
But it may be, Jeffreys hoped to be a Privy Counsellor,
or to get a Chief Justice's Place. We Citizens, next to the
security of the King, are fond of our Charter and Liberties, and are fond of the Chamber of London, and of the
protection of Orphans; and to make sure work, and
confirm all the City in the danger of Petitioning, Jeffreys tells them, "They were like to lose their Charter,
and all their Privileges." It was a damnable way in
Jeffreys to use towards the King, to represent his People
to him as seditious, &c. and so good a People as those of
London! And to tell them, "that if they did petition,
they were likely to have no Parliament, but if they did
not, probably they might!" This Gentleman said not,
it was unlawful to petition, &c. but would have us stay
till our throats be cut, and then we may. But the Common Council did carry the Petition, and made the Court
of Aldermen part with their Prerogative, and poll
with the Commons, and then they carried it. As to
Jeffreys's punishment, I leave him to the mercy of the
House.

Sir William Jones.] I am not at all against naming a
Committee, &c. When the whole matter shall be before
you, it is then fittest to agree with the Committee. But
I would go farther. I had not the honour to be of the
House, to be present at this Committee, but for this matter
of Jeffreys's opposing Petitioning, &c. the fact is made out.
For my part, I do think that those who go about to stop
Petitioning, go about to bring a Civil War into the Nation. There is no Government that ties up mens tongues,
especially when their desires are according to Law, but
will soon be troubled with their hands; therefore it is very
dangerous to stop the People's mouths. This matter of
Petitioning is condemned (it seems) because of gathering
of hands. Jeffreys was of opinion in the Common Council, that it was lawful to petition, &c. but before the
King and Council he held it unlawful. This seems to
me to take away the very Liberty of Englishmen. If it be
unlawful to gather hands, then but one man must
come and petition at a time, and this is to render it ineffectual; and then it will be reasonable to say, "Here is
but one man's hand to the Petition; you are too saucy,
go home." If men, under pretence of Petitioning, will
come in a body of twenty thousand men, therefore it is
not permitted; but this of gathering of hands is a
middle way, and we must acquaint one another with
our intentions, else there is no way of Petitioning. This is
to show the dangerous consequence of opposing Petitioning. This Gentleman is of the Profession of the Law—I
do not know, as to my notion of the Recorder of London's Place, that it is his office to terrify men, by saying, "Let me see their faces that vote for Petitioning."
And what he has done has not been only in his
sphere as Recorder, but when he comes to attend the
King and Council, he intrudes his opinion of Petitioning. I never did presume, in the Office I had the honour to be in, (Attorney General,) to tell the King what
was Law, without his asking me the question. This is
an extraordinary thing; it seems, he takes Petitioning
to be Law at the Common Council, and unlawful before the King and Council. I observe, that the Proclamation tells us, "That by the common known
Law of the Nation, Petitioning is unlawful." We all
know that the King, by reason of his great occasions, does not descend to enquire into the Law, and
these men, that tell the King otherwise, pretend to
know the Law very well. Jeffreys, at the Tryal of a man
indicted for gathering hands to the Petition, when the
Jury found the man guilty, said, "He would do as the
Jury had done," and got a Jury sworn for the purpose. And it was an extraordinary way, that a man not
concerned should challange one of the Jury, that tore anotheir Petition, and Jeffreys gave the man money to drink;
and "would, upon occasion, (as he said) be a Counsel for
him gratis. "This shows, as much as can be, his inclination and greatest endeavour to obstruct Petitioning, &c.
Should a man, out of his Office, do this that Jeffreys at the
Council, &c.—It shows the greatest animosity. I am
sorry to hear such things as I have heard to-day of this
Gentleman; and having spoken thus much, I shall now
speak to the matter of agreeing with your Committee. I
take it, the Committee has examined the matter of fact,
and all the answer you can expect, is, whether Jeffreys be
guilty, or not guilty. I hope now, that your Vote of
agreeing with the Committee will be at least as large
upon Jeffreys, as your Vote against the hinderers of Petitioning, and if the House proceed not upon him, your
Vote will be lame. As to the addressing the King to
remove him from his Office of Chief Justice of Chester,
do it not till there be sufficient proof against him of what
he is charged with there—This person has a great Office
in that County, as much as Chief Justice of England
there. I would only acquaint you, that I am afraid that
his Office is for life; but whether so or not so, I would
address the King, that he may not exercise the Office
of Recorder; and whether a person so guilty be an
Officer fit for them, I appeal to the Lord Mayor and
Aldermen.

Sir Francis Winnington.] I know not one particular
thing that tends more to the dissolution of the being of
Parliaments, than this of murdering Petitions. Evils are
increased by intermission of Parliament. It is on Record,
that former Kings have chid their Subjects for not petitioning for redress of their Grievances. Sir Samuel Barnardiston's case and this are of the same thread. If false Returns are made of Members, and not petition !—What
tends more to the suppression of Parliaments than this?
I do not my duty, if I take no notice of this. This of
the Proclamation against Petitioning, is of a very extraordinary nature. What is our duty, is called "seditious;"
and what is plain Law, the Proclamation calls "against
the known Laws of the Land." The Proclamation is of a
strange style, and I have often wondered at it. This Gentleman at the Council-Table taking upon him answering
matter of Law, without asking him any Question, shows
the officious spirit of the man against Petitioning. Mr Arnold promoted Petitioning in his Country, and was sent
for to the Council-Board, and had an accusation as if he
was an Offender; like those that first discovered the Irish
Plot, the men were clapped up for their pains; and, you may
remember, Mr Oates was accused of buggery, and the countenance that it had. When Mr Arnold came to the Council, he answered every point. Said one Lord, "He printed a Petition." Said another Lord, "Say you so? then he
promoted Petitioning." And when all Mr Arnold's accusations came to an hearing, this of Petitioning was fastened
upon him as a monstrous thing. I would have the World
see you have a just resentment of this thing; that men
should be troubled by summons to the Council-Table,
and then sent home again. As for the Case mentioned in
Crooke's Reports, it is an extrajudicial thing. As the Shipmoney was a Star-Chamber Case, so this Judgment
against Petitions has been exploded, as an erroneous opinion, out of Law Books. I believe, the Proclamation came
out in the Metropolis, London, to affright the People from
Petitioning by fear of a Quo Warranto against their Charter, and of a Judgment against the City about the Water-Bailiff: As much as to say, "If you will not petition
the King, you shall have that Right given;" yet judged
theirs by Law this Term. But the City (it seems) was too
great a body to be deterred from Petitioning by that, if it
were so. I propose this: Jeffreys is Chief Justice of
Chester, where mens lives are concerned. He is likewise
of the King's Council, and that is a great Trust. If you
address to remove him from the Office of a Judge, he is
of the King's Council too, and not fit to advise in these
things, he has given so ill testimony of his Principles. If
you thus address what sense you have of his behaviour,
notwithstanding all his mettle he will give up his Recorder's Place. When you put the Question to agree with
the Committee upon that, you may make your Address to
the King, and desire the Members that serve for the City to
signify to the Court of Aldermen your opinion, and they
will be sure to get a Recorder that shall keep Laws, and
not break them.

Colonel Titus.] I will not go about to extenuate this
Offence of the Recorder. By the same reason that men
may not petition for sitting of the Parliament, they may
not petition for redress of Grievances. He affirmed, "That
it was unlawful to petition for the Parliament, &c." As
much as to say, "It is unlawful to petition for their Liberties, and preservation of their Liberties." If this be so,
it is no matter what of it is lawful. There are calm times,
when mens minds are not disturbed, and then it is not so
necessary to petition; but this was a time when there was
no way of Redress of fears of Popery, &c. but by Parliament. Who could pursue the Plot but the Parliament?
There was that fermentation in mens minds by the disturbance of the time—But was this for a Country Gentleman to do, that minds his sports? He should not be
troubled with the Government. This Jeffreys was the
Gentleman, who, by his knowlege in the Law, should have
instructed others. For a Great Man in Authority, it is
not only a fault for want of knowlege, but this man
knew the Law. If the blind lead the blind, and both fall
into the ditch, no-body wonders at it: But when a man
has his eyes in his head, to mislead others!—Here is so
much to condemn him, and nothing to excuse what he
has done. If a man will step into Places by subverting
the Law, let him be made an example. See your Vote,
and it is all the justice in the World to apply it to this
man.

Sir William Hickman.] You must come to the Question, Whether agree, or not agree, with the Committee.
The Evidence is fit to be known, and then it is proper
to aggravate the offence.

Sir Christopher Musgrave.] Before you come to censure this Gentleman, you are to put the Question, Whether agree, or not agree, with your Committee; and then
it is proper for the Gentleman to come, to have your
censure upon him.

Resolved, That this House doth agree with the Committee,
That Sir George Jeffreys, by traducing and obstructing Petitioning
for the sitting of this Parliament, hath betrayed the Rights of the
Subject.

Sir John Trevor.] Having agreed with your Committee,
and being now about to pass censure upon Jeffreys, if I did
think he was either the adviser, or was of opinion that
Petitioning for sitting of the Parliament was unlawful, I
would lay my hand upon him as soon as any man in England. I will not go about to contradict the Evidence,
but if all was laid before you, I believe you will not be
of the opinion that he was the adviser. Nothing is a
greater offence, and there cannot be a greater crime,
than for the King's Counsel to give advice contrary to
their knowlege, to destroy King and People. A man
that is accused of a great many crimes, and can wipe off
some of them, is happy. As to that part of the Charge
relating to Juries, that Evidence was heard on both sides,
and I do not remember that it was reported. I take it,
he stands fair as to his carriage relating to the Libel, and
the Rape. This Gentleman has been Recorder of London,
many years, and it is a place of great Authority, and
it is his happiness that there is no Evidence against him
that he ever packed a Jury, or has gone about to clear a
person nocent. He has been Counsel for the King when
persons were indicted for the horrid Plot, and behaved himself worthily; and if I may say he was too
forward in prosecuting, if so, that may make some atonement for his forwardness in other matters. His carriage
in this matter of Petitioning was an error in his Judgment,
in that he declared it at that time not expedient. He is
a Gentleman that has raised himself by his Profession.
There is nothing said that he has done wrong to any person in Estate or Life. He said, "he would submit his Case
to the Judgment of the House," and I hope in some
measure you will take pity of him.

Mr Boscawen.] Trevor has spoken in favour of this
Gentleman. I will compare nothing of his actions, but I
think he is like the Cow that has given a good pail of
milk, and kicked it down again. The crime he is charged with is since the Tryal of the persons for the Plot,
and in that he was pretty well disposed. I look upon his
saying, "That it was not unlawful to petition," to be as
an art he used to bring men off, by persuading them it
was not expedient. He has brought in an Authority
out of Crooke's Reports, of a Judgment in the Star-Chamber, which was not Law, to persuade the King that all
such Petitioning was next to Rebellion, and Sedition. I
think the Judgment proposed does not exceed his crime,
and pray put that into your Vote, "That he gave an opinion officiously in the Council, when he was neither required by the Council, nor the Court of Aldermen, to
give his opinion." I would not only punish him for what
he has done, but prevent the like for the future. I would
address the King, to put him out of his Commission of
Chief Justice of Chester, and recommend it to the City, to
chuse them another Recorder.

Sir Robert Clayton.] What he is accused of, is, "That
he declared that the popular way of Petitioning, by getting hands, was against Law." But what sticks with
me is his officiousness at the Council-Table.

Ordered, That an humble Address be made to his Majesty,
to remove Sir George Jeffreys out of all public Offices: [And
that this Vote be communicated, by the City Members, to the
Court of Aldermen, &c.]

Monday, November 15.

[Mr Secretary Jenkins delivered the following Message from
his Majesty:

"Charles R.

"His Majesty did, in his Speech, at the opening of this Session,
desire the advice and assistance of his Parliament in relation to
Tangier: The condition and importance of the Place obliges his
Majesty to put this House in mind again, that here lies upon them
for the support of it, without which it cannot be much longer
preserved: His Majesty does therefore very earnestly recommend
Tangier again to the due and speedy consideration and care of
this House (fn. 4)."

It was ordered to be taken into consideration on Wednesday.]

An ingrossed Bill, from the Lords, for the better regulating the
Tryal of Peers of England, was read a second time.

Sir Thomas Clarges.] I wish, that, as this way of Tryal
is hard for the Lords, as it is now, so I would have something for the Commons in this Bill. I would have
something to secure the Commons Appeal against a Peer,
for it is hard to come by combat and other formalities. I would have a Clause to make Appeals more easily
come by.

Mr Paul Foley.] In all Appeals against a Nobleman,
he must come to be tryed by his Peers first. We ought
to take care that this Act extend not to Appeals, but
that they may be come at more easily. But there is something more; since the Impeachments of the Lords in the
Tower, several points have been agreed to us, as, "when
a Peer is impeached by the Commons, he ought to
be secured." I would have that in the Bill. "And
being impeached, not tryable but in Parliament." If
that pass not in the Bill, the Lords in the Tower may
be tryed out of Parliament. I would have that taken
care of.

Sir Henry Ford.] The Bill has more in it than appears
in the face of it. If the Lords level themselves with the
Commons, they may have Challenges. I thank God, but
few Tryals of Peers have been since the King came in,
and but few before in the late King's time. I would
have the Lords maintain their Honour at the height, but
I am afraid that, by this Bill, a Lord found guilty may
escape. Fifty are to be summoned upon a Tryal, and
thirty five are to appear, and the Lord tryed may have
Challenge. If several Peers are to be tryed, and if every
one challenges twelve, you will have no Jury; there will
not be Peers enough to try them. I would consider
of it.

Colonel Titus.] The end of the Lords Bill is, that
they may have an equal and indifferent way of Tryal.
We know how the Peers are appointed that are to try;
by the Lord Steward, &c. and it may be when a Lord is
committed, if it be for the advantage of the Ministers,
he will have a very favourable Jury, that he may commit more Crimes. When a Lord is to be tryed in Parliament, I find it is wonderfully troublesome; if he have voted
with the Commons in any good Bill, he not only will be
punished for the Crimes he has committed, but for what
he may do hereafter; therefore the Lords have great reason for such a Bill. But let us not be more careful of the
Lords than they are of themselves, and I would not
make them less humble, by denying them Challenges, than
they will make themselves. I mean, that you will commit the Bill upon the Debate.

Mr Hampden.] I am not against offering Clauses to
make the Lords Vote of Commitment of a Peer impeached, &c. part of the Bill. But I think that Vote is not
revokable. The Lords have made a Declaration of the
Right of the Commons, which the Commons have always
asserted. I am willing to put as many locks upon the Bill
as may be, but I hope it is taken for granted that the
Lords have made a Declaration of the Right of the
Commons in that point, and I think it is irrevokable
already.

Mr Sacheverell.] I think that the Declaration of the
Lords is irrevokable. But I remember that a Lord at a
Conference did acquaint you, "That the Commons had
gained that point of securing a Lord impeached, &c."
But the Commons looked upon it as no point gained, and
no more than what was their Right before. My Lord
Privy Seal opened the Conference, "That this matter
was only agreed, when Special Matter in the Accusation
was assigned;" and all the Lords at the Conference did
declare, that my Lord Privy Seal had no authority from
the Lords for that point of Special Matter. But I find
it not entered into the Lords Journal; therefore I move
to have a declarative Clause, but still retaining it as your
Right already.

Mr Dering.] I move that the Bill may be temporary.
If it be a good Bill, you may continue it.

Sir John Trevor.] Since this Bill is for indifferent Justice for Tryal of the Peers, I move to have it perpetual,
and I would not have that any part of the Debate to commit the Bill upon.

[The Bill was ordered to be committed.]

On the Petition of the Bailiff of Haslemere, to be released
from his Confinement, for making a false Return.

Mr Harbord.] There was a Project, in the late Long
Parliament, that, in case the King would think fit that
100,000l. might be sprinkled in some Boroughs, and so put
Gentlemen to expences to be chosen, they might have a
Parliament to their mind. When a Gentleman comes into a Borough a stranger, and is there chosen in the manner that has been at Haslemere, if you do not discountenance such practices, you are lost, and it may be, this is
one of the last practices you will be put upon before you
are sent home. This being put in practice here, I would
set a mark upon this now, to free you from slavery hereafter. This man may be an object of your mercy, being poor; but it seems there was some practice to indemnify this man with one Mr Gresham, and the Sheriff
affixed two Indentures to the Return, and he ought to
make but one. If one Indenture be made of a Return,
and another by way of Certificate, there is no fault committed. Let these Gentlemen tell the Bailiff, "That
the House is inclinable to be merciful to him, if he will
tell who set him at work;" that you may see what has
been the practice to overthrow your Liberties by such Returns. But if he will not declare it, let him lie by it.

Colonel Birch.] I would have the Bailiff here now
to declare who set him at work to make this Return.
These practices, else, will be soon played upon you
again.

[The Bailiff was ordered to be brought to the Bar the next
day.]

On carrying up the Bill to exclude the Duke of York.

Mr Hampden.] After you have appointed the Tryal of
Lord Stafford, and the Prosecution of the Plot, is there
any person who can hinder your Evidence, or stifle it?
The reason given, for not carrying the Bill up to the
Lords, is, "That there is such irrefragable Evidence of
the Duke's being in the Plot, as will induce the Lords to
pass the Bill." They lay this, as a great weight to stop
it. If they have good Information that there is Evidence,
and will take it upon themselves to make it appear, I
shall be against the going up of the Bill. I would have no
mistake; if they will say that the Evidence is considerable, and not a light Information, I am for staying the
Bill.

Colonel Titus.] The Gentleman may be imposed upon
in the Evidence. I would consider this Bill, not only for
within Doors, but without. They will say, we have
done something to be repented of, if we carry not up the
Bill; but if these Gentlemen will say there is considerable
Evidence yet remaining, I am for staying the Bill; but
if Rumour, or Common Fame only, I would carry up the
Bill.

Sir John Holman.] I hear it, with a sad heart. Pray
send for Sir William Waller, and he will tell you what he
knows.

Sir Henry Capel.] If Sir William Waller be at the Door,
and have any thing to say to inform you of importance,
pray call him in. It seems to stand upon this point, that
Evidence will come in betwixt this and Thursday. The
Lords always encourage Evidence; and as the Lords do,
so should we, and I hope the Lords will not precipitate
any thing of the Bill, if there be farther Evidence, and
that the Lords will use the prudentest way.

Colonel Birch.] I would look on both sides this business. If you stay the Bill going up to the Lords, you
must have some grounds from Evidence the better to carry on the Bill there. I am one of those that believe
we never had had any such Evidence of the Plot as
has come in, had it not been for this Bill, and it is that
which gives the encouragement (for they are gallant Fellows that dare come in.) If this Bill miscarry to-day in
the Lords House, the Evidence will dwindle to nothing.
I never knew it denied upon Reason, but that the carrying up a Bill may be deferred.

Mr Harbord.] The matter is short. We must trust
the King, or he us. If we stay till Wednesday, that the
Debate of Tangier may be over, and send the Bill up on
Thursday, then comes on the Debate of Money. I am for
the King to trust us, for I will be bold to say, we have
had such a Succession of Ministers and Crimes, since the
Breach of the Triple League, as never was in story.
The single reason for deferring the carrying up this Bill
to the Lords till Thursday, is, "That the business of
Tangier is to be debated, and that the want of Money
for Tangier will induce the King to pass the Bill the more
easily." Will the King have the Money-Bill thrown
out of the Lords House, when he will ipso facto see that
he will have no Money for Tangier?

Mr Colt.] I have seen that Evidence which Sir William Waller can produce, and it is but a Paper of great
things, and no name to it. I believe it is but a sham.

Sir Henry Capel.] The Bill was ordered to be carried
up, and no man can speak against it without leave.

The Speaker.] So far you have voted already, "That
Lord Russel should carry up the Bill;" and now you had
better go by the general voice of the House than by a
Question; but I submit it to you.

Sir Christopher Musgrave.] You have been regular in
the Debate; but the Question is, "Whether the Bill
shall be now ordered to be carried up?" Unless a time
has been appointed, there may be a Question upon it,
and that is the Order of the House.

Footnotes

1. Even Mr Secretary Jenkins, for
the sins of his Office, became ob
noxious to the heat of the times.
One Norris, a Taylor, had been dispatched to France, to bring over
one Dowdal, a Priest, who was supposed to be in the whole secret of
the Plot; and a description of his
person, and an account of his errand, part written by one Dr Day,
and part by one Mr Sheridan, having been given, about three weeks
or a month after Norris's departure,
to the Secretary, a letter was written by his order to the Mayor of
Dover, enjoining him "to take
some handsome course to detain
the said Norris in his return, as also
the person or persons that he should
bring over with him, till he should
receive farther directions concerning him." Accordingly, Norris
no sooner landed at Dover than
he was seized and thrown into
the common prison; but finding
means to get free, presents himself
before the Bar of the House of
Commons with his complaint, &c.
where it farther appeared, that an
Order of Council, dated July 18,
1679, was obtained for Dowdal to
come to Dover for a month, that
before the said Order could take effect Dowdal died, and not without
suspicion of a violent death. Ralph.

2. The younger Brother of one,
who, from mean beginnings, had
by iron-works raised one of the
greatest estates that had been in
England in one time. He was a
learned, though not a practising,
Lawyer, and was a man of virtue
and good principles, but morose
and wilfull; and he had the affectation of passing for a great Patriot,
by his constant finding fault with
the Government, and keeping up
an ill humour and a bad opinion of
the Court. Burnet. He was twice
chosen Speaker, and was Uncle to
the first Lord Foley.

3. This overbearing Lawyer, being afterwards made Lord Chief
Justice, &c. was notoriously distinguished in the succeeding Annals
of this and the following reign, for
his arbitrary proceedings on the
Bench, and particularly for his cruelties in the West after the Duke of
Monmouth's defeat in 1685. At the
Revolution, being then Lord Chancellor, having disguised himself in
a sailor's habit, in order to escape
to Hamburgh, he was accidentally
discovered by the mob, and by
the Lord Mayor sent to the Tower,
where he soon after ended his
days under great misery and affliction.

4. On the day the Exclusion-Bill
had been left with the Lords, his
Majesty had by Message demanded
a Supply for Tangier, without
which, it was urged, that Place
could not be much longer preserved. There was some truth in this,
and some fallacy, as there is generally in all demands of the like nature. Tangier was indeed in some
distress, but the King was in more,
and whatever was given in relief
of the first, would also have contributed to the relief of the last.
But, on the other hand, the Commons very well knew they had
not been assembled to make fine
Speeches in the House, or render
themselves popular at the expence
of the Royal Family. Like the fine
Lady in the Comedy, there was
but one thing they could do to
pleasure the Court, which was,
giving Money, and that being
once done, they also knew, that
an instant dismission would follow;
there was therefore no pretence,
how plausible soever, that the King
could use, to show the necessity and
reasonableness of his having recourse to the benevolence of his
Subjects, but what they were prepared with pretences as plausible to
evade and refuse. Ralph.

5. The Exclusion-Bill was quickly brought up to the House of
Lords. The Earls of Essex and
Shaftsbury argued most for it; and
the Earl of Halifax was the champion on the other side. He gained
great honour in the Debate; and
had a visible superiority to Lord
Shaftsbury in the opinion of the
whole House: And that was to
him triumph enough. In conclusion, the Bill was thrown out upon
the first reading. The Country
Party brought it nearer an equality than was imagined they could
do, considering the King's earnestness in it, and that the whole
Bench of Bishops [except three]
was against it. Burnet.
Till eleven O'clock at night the
rage of altercation and the lust of
superiority kept up the Contest, the
King being present all the while,
and the whole House of Commons
attending, who had adjourned their
own Proceedings to indulge their
curiosity in observing the progress
and event of this. Ralph.
This was one of the greatest
Days ever known in the House of
Lords, with regard to the importance of the business they had in
hand, which concerned no less
than the lineal Succession to the
Crown. Great was the Debate,
and great were the Speakers: The
chief of those for the Bill was the
Earl of Shaftsoury; the chief of
those against it, Lord Halifax. It
was matter of surprize that the latter should appear at the head of an
Opposition to the former, when
they were wont always to draw together [Sir John, it seems, was ignorant of the animosity between these
Lords] but the Business in agitation was against Lord Halifax's
judgment, and therefore he opposed it with vigour; and being a
man of the clearest head, finest wit;
and fairest eloquence, he made so
powerful a Defence, that he alone,
so all confessed, influenced the
House, and persuaded them to
throw out the Bill. Reresby.
The Numbers on the Division
were 63 to 30. A Protest was entered on the occasion by Lord
Crew.